Thanks for this, Dan! I get the sense that you're truly "wired for benevolence." I also believe you're seriously thinking about the hard problems. I come from a slightly different perspective, having spoken with ~100 to ~400 people per day, for months on end, about politics (I was a libertarian party petitioner/"activist"/pamphleteer).
I believe that drilling down into subsections of "cybernetics"(History, Economics, Law, Philosophy) is only useful at a young age, in a "common law"(economically free, spontaneous-order-generating) system that has not been thoroughly corrupted. Because the system is now dominated by sociopaths, the labels we have for any cybernetic sub-system won't matter: those labels, if good, will be dishonest. (Even so, I actually like that you took things back to "fundamentals" using basic moral archetypes, for that reason. I just think that given the well-established works of cybernetics, anything that presents itself as a "unified theory" should reference Norbert Wiener's "Cybernetics" and "empath vs. sociopath Psychology"--Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo-- more than "Economics" or "Philosophy.")
All human beings are fighting over who has the ability to control money: central bank insiders(and their corrupted stooges, the major party voters), or individuals(precious metal owners, bitcoin owners who know cryptography and practice rigid opsec, those with "leading force" technology)? But the battle isn't unfolding in the domain of "Economics," it's unfolding in the domain of "processing networks" and "psychology." The "Economics" battle is a mid-level battle that was politically lost a long time ago.
I guess that my only real objection to this article is that it doesn't recognize that the problem is not one of comprehension or understanding. The problem is a battle which rarely escalates to physical fighting, because one side is far superior in strength to the other. Educating the side that has the power is unnecesary and useless: they know why they have the power. Power allows them to steal unlimited amounts of money (by controlling the money creation process itself), that can then buy them the best food, reproductive privileges, shelter, travel privileges, and fungible resources stores(money).
They know that even US "libertarians" (much less some subset of libertarians, such as "objectivists," "agorists," "ancaps," "classical liberals," etc.) lack the will to abolish the fed. They are too comfortable to fight for something that means giving up that comfort. If they weren't, they be like Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner: they'd be organizing against unjust punishment EFFECTIVELY.
Organizing effectively means you have to be honest about the psychological priorities of the majority.
The majority wants comfort over freedom. They want to be able to raise families first, and want to be free second. (Luckily, it's "second" rather than "not at all," or we'd have no chance.) The majority confers power on the bankers and prison profiteers, because they believe "anarchists" offer no viable alternative. (And sadly, they are usually correct.)
In order to get the libertarian society they claim to want, libertarians have to figure our the optimal formulation of their beliefs, both PHILOSOPHICAL and STRATEGIC. Without both of the prior elements, libertarianism will not get the free and prosperous "classical liberal" society it desires.
The term "anarchy" is strategic death, because, to the average voter, it means "nobody comes to arrest Jeffrey Dahmer ...nobody has the legitimate authority to investigate the smell of dead bodies coming from his apartment." This is a problem that anarchists can't bring themselves to deal with honestly. So they take the dishonest path of "redefining the term 'anarchy'." Yet, in every way the current system has a "ruler" who enforces "rules" on pot smokers, the current system has a "ruler" who enforces "rules" on serial murderers. The classical liberal system says, "here's how those rulers and rules need to be different." The anarchist system says "get rid of the rulers entirely, in all circumstances." (Now sure, anarchists will claim that's not the case, and they will give you "their definition" of the term anarchy, but it's not the same as the one inthe dictionary, so this discrepancy causes the vast majority of mainstream people to reject anarchy. This is a strategic weakness, because, most of what agorists actually want is the same thing desired by "sufficiently radical classical liberals.")
The central bankers know everything I've written is true. They know it at such a deep level that they encourage "agorists" and even pay for them to speak out on message boards against electoral participation.
Electoral participation can uncover rigged votes(via exit polling and exit-polling videos). Staying at home on election day cannot.
Until a "unified theory" of politics combines philosophy with strategy and addresses both in great detail, it will not be a "unified theory." Moreover, both prior subjects will need to be addressed in the language of "cybernetics" or "control and communication in the animal and the machine."